An expanded Supreme Court would be more effective, and make each appointment less of an apocalyptic event.
‘When the Constitution was written, people were expected to die in their 50s. The framers never contemplated that these terms would regularly go to 30-plus years as they do now.’
Fox News Host Shannon Bream joins the Federalist Radio Hour to discuss the new SCOTUS nominee, Roe v. Wade, and Miss America.
If Kavanaugh’s views were adopted by other courts, then other frivolous claims attacking religion in the public square would have a better chance of being heard in federal courts.
Which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will? Kavanaugh did both.
Justice Kennedy’s vote, so often featured in 5-4 decisions, changed the country in fundamental ways. Now Trump will have a court-redefining legacy.
The proposal is simple: when Democrats next hold the presidency and Senate, they should pack the courts to ensure that the Left can achieve its goals.
Texts revealed a relationship between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Judge Rudolph Contreras. Does that cast suspicion on Contreras’ recusal from the Flynn case Strzok investigated?
We have divergent interpretive theories that map onto ideologically sorted parties, so is it any surprise that elections are high-stakes for judges?
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards is right: Courts matter. They matter because liberal judges long ago stopped interpreting the law and started inventing it.
President Trump has plenty of qualified, pro-life nominees in tow. Yet that’s not enough, because getting them confirmed has been nearly impossible.
This week, in an echo of the 21 contenders for the Supreme Court rolled out during the campaign, 11 would-be black-robers join last month’s stellar list of 10 lower-court nominees.
How increasingly letting states and citizens sue to stop laws and regulations they don’t like, such as President Trump’s immigration order, can politicize courts and end self-government.
Democratic state legislators want to require presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns. There’s a constitutional problem with that.
The Supreme Court’s ability to issue a binding opinion on any subject that no one else could overturn is inconsistent with the checks and balances the Framers crafted.
Once I had the opportunity to serve in the Wisconsin legislature I realized just how severely flawed is the idea of looking to legislative history for guidance in statutory interpretation.
If you look at characteristics other than skin tone and Y-chromosome, you could hardly get a more varied set of candidates to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.
If widely embraced, judicial engagement would give constitutional conservatives something to get genuinely excited about.
To truly merit a place on the Supreme Court—whether for Merrick Garland or someone else—the next appointee must understand the constitutional power he or she exercises.
- The $15 Minimum Wage Is Wreaking Havoc On New York City DiningEventually, the world-renowned restaurant life in citiecontinue reading >
- Trump Is Right: Mueller’s Latest Indictment Suggests He’s Conducting A Witch HuntContrary to the mainstream media’s narrative, Robert continue reading >
- Ocasio-Cortez’s Factually Challenged Position On Israel Is EmbarrassingHow can someone know so little about a topic yet be so continue reading >